1888, and vacating all tax deeds and certificates described in or referred to in the amended answer. Neither party will recover costs or disbursements in this court. The District court will enter judgment accordingly.
(54. N. W. Rep. 404.)
O. M. English vs. J. D. Goodman.
Opinion filed Dec. 23rd, 1892.
Trial—Verdict—Amendment by Court.
In a case where the sole issue is plaintiff's right to recover anything of defendant, and where the amount due, if anything, is admitted by the pleadings, and where the jury returns a general verdict in favor of plaintiff, and against defendant, without fixing the amount of the recovery, it is not error prejudicial to the defendant for the court to order judgment for plaintiff for the amount admitted by the pleadings.
Appeal from District Court, Stutsman County; Rose, J.
Assumpsit by O. M. English against J. D. Goodman and another. Plaintiff had judgment, and defendants appeal.
Affirmed.
Lewis T. Hamilton, for appellants.
S. L. Glaspell, for respondent.
Per Curiam. This case originated in justice’s court, and was brought to recover $50 for work and labor performed under a special contract. At the trial in the District Court the jury returned a sealed verdict, as follows, omitting title: “We, the jury, find for the plaintiff, and against the defendants.” Upon this verdict the court ordered judgment for plaintiff for $50, and costs. Defendants appeal, and insist that under § 5062, Comp. Laws, which provides that, where a verdict is found for plaintiff in an action for the recovery of money, the jury must also find the amount of the recovery; that the court was without authority to order any judgment. No doubt the more regular and orderly
N. D. R.—9.
